Guest guest Posted February 9, 2003 Report Share Posted February 9, 2003 I was distressed to hear from a 4th year PCOM student the other day that he found the practical dictionary worthless since so many TCM terms were not in it. I asked him for an example and he said jing. You can't find Jing anywhere. No one had ever explained to this student that this dictionary was organized by english translation terms, not pin yin. the confusion no doubt stemmed from the numerous entries of yin, yang and qi, the only three terms left untranslated, I believe. He was also unable to ever find terms used in his major textbooks, such as CAM, Foundations and Bensky. He felt ripped off in his purchase and just had a bad taste in his mouth for paradigm and everything wiseman. He had also never been told that the english terms in the dictionary were wiseman only, so he would not find Benskyisms inside. should he have been able to figure all this out himself. Perhaps. But should a student be required to read the forwards to dictionaries in order to use them. That would not be one's assumption without be informed to do so. It is vital that we explain how to use these references and what they actually reference if we require them as texts in our classes. Our students are typically not lifelong academics and we cannot take these things for granted. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2003 Report Share Posted February 9, 2003 Being also a PCOM professor, I am amazed at this comment, especially since so many teachers use the dictionary at this point. I've not had a student ever complain of this up front. In my own classes, we use the Wiseman terminology, although I always give the Bensky term as well for familiarity, including on some tests. This student's complaint seems especially weak to me, as the student could simply use the index to find the pinyin term. We shouldn't award intellectual laziness. Of course, looking up jing1 in the dictionary means you need to know the tone, which is not given in the other books mentioned by this student. But is this a bad thing? We have several entries for jing1, including channel, fright, and essence with different characters. Once you have the tone, then one has to differentiate the terms, recognizing you can have the same pinyin and tone, but different characters. Some teachers may not be willing to address this issue, trying to keep TCM superficially 'user friendly', and limited to a few terms and books, but the student and the educational process both lose in the end. You've brought up a subject that leads to the crux of the issue of CM education. Do we simply rely on 'readymade texts' with different translation schemes that meet the (sometimes outdated) requirements of state boards and national certification tests? Or, do we deal with the issue of the complexity and depth of Chinese medical terms, including the relationship of translated terms to pinyin to Chinese character? The fault lies not with Wiseman and Paradigm (or any other book or publisher who uses the dictionary as term source), but with earlier authors who presented an arbitrary translation method without explanation or adequate glossary, and with institutions and licensing boards that made these texts standards for graduation and licensure. Having said all this, I think you have a good idea, in that some students may have to be trained to use the dictionary as a tool. On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 12:45 PM, wrote: > I was distressed to hear from a 4th year PCOM student the other day > that he found the practical dictionary worthless since so many TCM > terms were not in it. I asked him for an example and he said jing. > You can't find Jing anywhere. No one had ever explained to this > student that this dictionary was organized by english translation > terms, not pin yin. the confusion no doubt stemmed from the numerous > entries of yin, yang and qi, the only three terms left untranslated, I > believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2003 Report Share Posted February 9, 2003 , " " wrote: > Having said all this, I think you have a good idea, in that some > students may have to be trained to use the dictionary as a tool. >>> I agree with you Z'ev. This sounds like a problem of adequately integrating the Wiseman terminology into the class material---mixed with one student's poor attitude. Can you post your gloss of Bensky (and others) into Wiseman terms? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 Z'ev, I don't find it amazing at all. In fact it seems to me to be evidence of the claim that there is a significant degree of illiteracy in the field both in the ranks of professionals and the schools. I use the word illiteracy here not in a pejorative sense but simply to mean the inability to read and write and ignorace resulting from not reading. The reading and writing I'm mainly concerned about, of course, is the reading and writing of the materials that constitute the bulk of the knowledge base of the subject, which just happen to be in Chinese. But what I see this particular individual as an instance of is the development of an anti-literate attitude by a student who has been educated in a general environment that devalues terminology, language, literature and related issues. I don't point the finger at PCOM because I believe the condition is widespread. I talked about it in my talk at PCOM last fall and asked those in the audience to assume the point of view of doctors viewing a patient who presents with the symptoms of a disease pattern. People who don't know what dictionaries are or how to use them properly are encouraged by a training and examination routine that downplays the importance of knowing what terms mean. If we want people who not only know how to use dictionaries but know how to think with the words once they have looked them up, we're just going to have to put more attention on the importance of these things. I agree with Todd that it's a good idea to teach students how to use dictionaries rather than to assume that they know already. I'd also point out that in between lifelong academics (may G-d have mercy on their souls) and those who don't know what a dictionary is, there is probably a broad middle ground on which most of us stand. And if everyone considered it his or her own personal responsibility to be familiar with the meanings of the terms they use in their study and practice, then individuals like the one mentioned in Todd's post would be fewer and farther between. Ken , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Being also a PCOM professor, I am amazed at this comment, especially > since so many teachers use the dictionary at this point. I've not had > a student ever complain of this up front. In my own classes, we use > the Wiseman terminology, although I always give the Bensky term as well > for familiarity, including on some tests. This student's complaint > seems especially weak to me, as the student could simply use the index > to find the pinyin term. We shouldn't award intellectual laziness. > > Of course, looking up jing1 in the dictionary means you need to know > the tone, which is not given in the other books mentioned by this > student. But is this a bad thing? We have several entries for jing1, > including channel, fright, and essence with different characters. Once > you have the tone, then one has to differentiate the terms, recognizing > you can have the same pinyin and tone, but different characters. Some > teachers may not be willing to address this issue, trying to keep TCM > superficially 'user friendly', and limited to a few terms and books, > but the student and the educational process both lose in the end. > > You've brought up a subject that leads to the crux of the issue of CM > education. Do we simply rely on 'readymade texts' with different > translation schemes that meet the (sometimes outdated) requirements of > state boards and national certification tests? Or, do we deal with the > issue of the complexity and depth of Chinese medical terms, including > the relationship of translated terms to pinyin to Chinese character? > > The fault lies not with Wiseman and Paradigm (or any other book or > publisher who uses the dictionary as term source), but with earlier > authors who presented an arbitrary translation method without > explanation or adequate glossary, and with institutions and licensing > boards that made these texts standards for graduation and licensure. > > Having said all this, I think you have a good idea, in that some > students may have to be trained to use the dictionary as a tool. > > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 12:45 PM, wrote: > > > I was distressed to hear from a 4th year PCOM student the other day > > that he found the practical dictionary worthless since so many TCM > > terms were not in it. I asked him for an example and he said jing. > > You can't find Jing anywhere. No one had ever explained to this > > student that this dictionary was organized by english translation > > terms, not pin yin. the confusion no doubt stemmed from the numerous > > entries of yin, yang and qi, the only three terms left untranslated, I > > believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 , " " < zrosenbe@s...> wrote: We shouldn't award intellectual laziness. Having said all this, I think you have a good idea, in that some > students may have to be trained to use the dictionary as a tool. > I certainly agree about intellectual laziness in general, but national boards and grade inflation at most schools already reward this. We have students of a certain background at our schools. In many cases, it is not that they are lazy, but that they have no exposure to higher academics. the student I was referring to actually speaks and reads fluently in an asian language at a far higher level than any american PCOM professor I know. Yet because he has no real academic background, he does not know how to read a technical bilingual dictionary. Unless you believe that we must only recruit students from mainstream academia, then it is the faculty's responsiblity to insure students know how to use their reference texts. In fact, I consider one of my most important roles to be to show students how to efficiently use such resources in clinic. To merely dismiss such students as lazy is really self- defeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 , " James Ramholz < jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > I agree with you Z'ev. This sounds like a problem of ... one student's poor attitude. > I really think you guys have missed the point. the student is blameless here and the institutions that train him are wholly accountable. do not confuse literacy with academic familiarity. they only overlap if one gains their literacy in an academic environment. otherwise they are unrelated. as I said, this student speaks, reads and writes an asian language at a very high level, which he taught himself when he lived in asia for 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 I haven't put together a gloss, although it would be a good idea. Basically, it would look something like this: Chinese character pinyin Wiseman term Bensky term å« wei4 defense protective è¥ ying2 construction nutritive 下法 xia4 fa3 precipitation purging and so on. On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 06:42 PM, James Ramholz <jramholz wrote: > e. > > Can you post your gloss of Bensky (and others) into Wiseman terms? > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed > healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate > academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety > of professional services, including board approved online continuing > education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2003 Report Share Posted February 10, 2003 Z'ev: It's probably a necessity for someone like you to do a gloss like the one you're describing since questions on the national exam are not in Wiseman langauge and most standard texts choose not to use it. It could facilitate the dictionary's acceptence into the mainsteam. Jim Ramholz , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I haven't put together a gloss, although it would be a good idea. > Basically, it would look something like this: > > Chinese character pinyin Wiseman term Bensky term > > å« wei4 defense > protective > > è¥ ying2 construction > nutritive > > > 下法 xia4 fa3 precipitation > purging > > > and so on. > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2003, at 06:42 PM, James Ramholz > <jramholz> wrote: > > > e. > > > > Can you post your gloss of Bensky (and others) into Wiseman terms? > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed > > healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate > > academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety > > of professional services, including board approved online continuing > > education. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.